Presentation on theme: "69th IETF Chicago IETF BMWG WLAN Switch Benchmarking Tarunesh Ahuja, Tom Alexander, Scott Bradner, Sanjay Hooda, Jerry Perser, Muninder Sambi."— Presentation transcript:
69th IETF Chicago IETF BMWG WLAN Switch Benchmarking Tarunesh Ahuja, Tom Alexander, Scott Bradner, Sanjay Hooda, Jerry Perser, Muninder Sambi
2 Current Status Two candidate drafts posted draft-alexander-bmwg-wlan-switch-term-00.txt draft-alexander-bmwg-wlan-switch-meth-00.txt Some reflector discussion Areas of improvement Support for work “Isn’t this out of BMWG’s charter?”
3 The Drafts Terminology and methodology for WLAN controller benchmarking Terminology covers items specific to WLAN controllers Basic SUT components: WLAN, Access Controller, AP (WTP),... Traffic-related terms: unicast vs. multicast, high-priority vs. BE Mobility terms: roaming, roaming failures, roaming decision,... Data plane benchmark terms: Multicast forwarding rate, etc. Most terms already well defined by RFC 1242, RFC 2285 Control plane benchmark terms: roaming rate, reset recovery,...
4 The Drafts - Contd Methodology provides general information on test setups and test results, then describes benchmark tests Functional model of SUT/tester, test setups, SUT configuration Test conditions: frame sizes, PHY settings, trial duration,... Data plane benchmark tests Unicast throughput/forwarding rate; multicast forwarding rate Latency & jitter; QoS differentiation; power-save throughput Control plane benchmark tests Roaming delay & rate; endstation association rate & capacity WTP (AP) capacity Reset & failover recovery times Provides appendix on calculating intended load
5 Reflector Discussion Draft improvements suggested Detect IFS (and other protocol timer) cheating, as well as fudging on contention behavior Detect/report WLAN coordination function type Discourage or better specify open-air testing Word usage issues ”Why do we need to do this?” Does not relate to IP core, Internet infrastructure? Aren’t WLANs a desktop/home sort of thing, like 10BASE-5 hubs? Why are we benchmarking an IEEE L2 standard?
6 Why Do We Need To Do This? Enterprise WLANs are highly IETF- & IP-centric Protocols standardized by CAPWAP group in IETF WLAN switch controllers function at Layer 3, not Layer 2 Out of scope for IEEE, which standardizes Layer 1/2 Incorporates many IETF-defined functions: ARP caching and proxying, DHCP service, firewalling, IPsec, tunneling, etc. Enterprise WLAN equipment not ”desktop & home” Present in the core networks of large enterprises Being adopted by service providers for WLAN access services Enterprise equipment benchmarking covered by BMWG’s charter Complete lack of WLAN switch performance benchmarks No common way to talk about IP performance of enterprise or service provider WLAN equipment Lack of accepted benchmarks => poor equipment performance
7 Does BMWG Have The Expertise? Isn’t there a lot of ’scary RF’ involved? No! WLAN controllers are pure Ethernet/IP devices! In some cases using wireless APs to connect to the WLAN controller interfaces is simpler, BUT... Methodology omits L1/L2-specific tests, and provides guidelines (see section 3.3) for eliminating RF effects on test results, AND... At least one vendor provides test equipment that is as easy to connect to the SUT as a core router with optical ports! Aren’t we testing wireless/RF-specific stuff? No! The data-plane metrics (throughput, latency, etc.) are all familiar friends from RFC 2544, RFC 2889 Control plane metrics are likewise ”wireless-independent” – they deal with attributes of the CAPWAP architecture Besides – wireless is now just as much a standard interface for an IP device as Ethernet, POS, ATM, etc.
8 Next steps Continue to solicit comments, feedback, and support Update drafts based on comments and re- submit Comments?